[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....

Thu Mar 27 16:01:56 UTC 2014

Goat-Rig is not the bad character he seems to be,
but actually he is a really nice guy,
just rather poorly understood.

Sort of like our other friend Yack'off.

Nice having 'em around.

Let a hundred bloomers flower.

   	-------Original Message-------
 From: Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
 To: David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org>
 Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
 Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the
Room video ....
 Sent: Mar 28 '14 03:08

This Academic Freedom Conference is a good step towards improving academia,
in that we fearlessly challenge the political, religious and military
influences on universities that unscientifically distort and inhibit
research into the Holocaust hoax, JFK assassination and 9/11 Truth which
are undoubtedly important subjects that still affect our lives everyday.
They are strong reminders that we no longer live in a democracy and are
under undue influence of a few immoral corrupt monsters.  Over forty
percent of the world's billionaires belong to one group of people.
Tenure erosion, adjunct faculty and the corporatization of Universities'
mission are inextricably linked and are no less of a reminder that if you
don't rise up you will be beat down by the same people that are taking away
our liberties and attempting to dominate us.

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:07 PM, David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org>
wrote:

Does it prove he's wrong? No, it just makes it much more likely. In a
larger sense, it means that the situation has gone from "all papers fail to
support the Khazar replacement theory" to "all papers but one fail to
support the Khazar replacement theory." That's enough to hang your hat on
if you're very keen to call the Jews en masse impostors. Which you are. And
which the white supremacist Christian Identity movement was, back in the
1980s, being the first time I heard the Khazar theory. But one outlier not
enough to overturn scientific consensus. And we'll have to see what the
scientific reaction to the paper is.

The general consensus as I understand it is that there is a recognized
Khazar contribution to the collective Jewish gene pool, in terms of
statistical correlation. But there is also strong genetic evidence that the
Jews per se are indeed descended from the Mideast, not the Asian steppes.
One doesn't preclude the other. I'd give citations, but you won't read
them.

The "cui bono" test -- that's the one that says: if my neighbor gets hit by
lightning and has willed me his car, then we can conclude that because I
got the car, I therefore caused the lightning. Cui bono, man, cui bono.
Open and shut case.

@%<

On Mar 27, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Stephen Francis <[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:

A ten-to-one ratio doesn't prove he's wrong, and he's the only one that
passes the qui bono test, and evidently the only one truly concerned with
people with Tay-Sachs disease.

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 11:50 AM, David Gehrig <[LINK:
mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org] david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:

What you don't mention - probably because whoever's feeding you this stale
dog food doesn't want you to know - is that for every paper on your side,
there are ten that refute it. You've seized on an outlier and declared that
it's What Science Says. But whoops! The science mostly says he's wrong.
See, for example, Ostler's book "Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish
People" -- published in 2012 by, well what do you know, Oxford Unversity
Press.

So, yes, Elhaik is pretty vulnerable right now. However, I'm sure it's no
small comfort for him to know Holocaust deniers like you are behind him
100%.

@%<

On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Stephen Francis <[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Your statement Mr. Gehrig sounds somewhat threatening? What are you going
to do?
And I'm not anti-Semitic...modern Jewish people in Israel are not Semites.

I now embrace the work of Dr. Eran Elhaik, whose genetic research, as
summarized by the [LINK: http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/75.full]
Oxford Journals:
(If this work was flawed he would be highly vulnerable.)

Highlight: Out of Khazaria—Evidence for “Jewish Genome”
Lacking
"Hebrew language and Jewish culture have been around for thousands of
years. For much of that history, the Jews managed to maintain their
heritage and cultural identity in the absence of a geographical state.
Wanderings,  settlements, and dispersal were thus a big part of their
history. Is evidence for that history preserved in genome data?
Eran Elhaik, a geneticist at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health,
thinks so. In a recently published study in Genome Biology Evolution([LINK:
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/75.full] Elhaik 2012), he is
calling for a rewrite of commonly held assumptions about Jewish ancestry.
Instead of being primarily the descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel,
present-day Jewish populations are, finds Elhaik, primarily the children of
a Turkish people who lived in what is now Russia, north of Georgia, east of
Ukraine. This civilization, the Khazars, converted from tribal religions to
Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries.
The controversy cut into by Elhaik's work runs deep, far past the lab
bench. Among some circles, his conclusions are bound to be unpopular.
“This is the first scientific paper to prove the Khazarian Hypothesis
and reject the Rhineland Hypothesis,” he says, “and with it
about 40 years of research.” Although his findings will not be
welcome in all circles, Elhaik's interest is more medical than political.
“All I want is to help my colleagues who are studying genetic
disorders,” he says. “I hope this work will open up a new era
in genetic studies where population stratification will be used more
correctly.”
Jewish populations are used in many disease studies because of their
presumed genetic homogeny. Some conditions, such as Tay–Sachs
disease, are more common among select Jewish populations than other
populations. However, Elhaik says, the acceptance of a flawed origin
narrative is hampering the best science.
For several decades, two hypothetical backgrounds of present-day European
Jews have seemed plausible to historians and geneticists. In the favored
“Rhineland Hypothesis,” Jews descended from
Israelite–Canaanite tribes who left the Holy Land for Europe in the
seventh century, following the Muslim conquest of Palestine. Then, in the
beginning of the 15th century, a group of approximately 50,000 left
Germany, the Rhineland, for the east. There they reproduced rapidly, in a
kind of “hyper–baby boom.” Their breeding outpaced their
non-Jewish neighbors by an order of magnitude—despite disease,
persecutions, wars, and economic hardship—ballooning to approximately
8 million strong by the 20th century. Under this history, European Jews
would be very similar to each other and would have Middle Eastern ancestry.

Several scholars prefer the “Khazarian Hypothesis,” Elhaik
included. This suggests the Jewish-convert Khazars, with reinforcements
from Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman Jews, formed the basis of Eastern
Europe's Jewish population when they fled northeast, following the collapse
of their empire at the 13th century.
Elhaik first became fascinated by this idea 10 years ago when reading
Arthur Koestler best-selling book The Thirteenth Tribe, published in 1976.
Koestler calculated that Jews could not have numbered 8 million in Eastern
Europe without the Khazar contribution. Upon reading his ideas, “I
couldn’t wait for genetic data that would allow someone to publish an
evaluation of this hypothesis,” says Elhaik.
When [LINK: http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/75.full] Behar et al.
published “The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people” in
2010, Elhaik decided to investigate the question that had intrigued him for
so long. Using data published by Behar, he calculated seven measures of
ancestry, relatedness, and geographical origin. Though he used some of the
same statistical tests as prior studies, he chose different comparisons.
“Results in the current literature are tangled,” Elhaik says.
“Everyone is basically following the same assumption: Ashkenazi Jews
are a population isolate, so they are all similar to one another, and this
is completely incorrect.”
Previous studies had, for example, combined the question of similarity
among and between Jewish populations and the question of ancestry and
relatedness to non-Jewish populations. Elhaik viewed these questions
separately. Jewish communities are less homogeneous than is popularly
thought, he says, with Jewish communities along the former Khazarian border
showing the most heterogeneity.
His second question centered on ancestry: When comparing Jewish communities
to their non-Jewish neighbors, Caucasus or Levant (Middle Eastern)
populations—which is the closest to Jews? “All Eurasian Jewish
communities are closer to Caucasus populations,” he writes, with
Central European Jews closer to Italian non-Jews as the exception. Not one
of the eight evaluated Jewish populations were closer to Levant
populations.
“I had the hardest time clearing myself from the mindset (of previous
work),” Elhaik says. “I was on the train, thinking hard, when
it came to me how to separate the questions. It was a great moment.”
However, it would be a mistake, Elhaik says, to conclude present-day Jews
have nothing to do with the ancient Judeans. “I found a signature of
the Middle East. I’m not certain whether it suggests Judean or
Iranian ancestry, but it's there.” Iranian, as well as Judean, Jews
began joining the Khazarian empire as early as the 5th century B.C.E.
“It might be strange given today's political situation, but it makes
a lot of historical sense.”
For Shlomo Sand, history professor at Tel Aviv University and author of the
controversial book The Invention of the Jewish People, Elhaik's paper was a
vindication of his long-held ideas.
"It's so obvious for me," says Sand. “Some people, historians and
even scientists, turn a blind eye to the truth. Once to say Jews were a
race was anti-Semitic, now to say they're not a race is anti-Semitic. It's
crazy how history plays with us.“
“There is no Jewish genome and certainly no Jewish gene,” says
the Israeli-born Elhaik. Instead, all humans are a mix of the same building
blocks, built with slightly different architectures. “The confusion
about European Jews results from their tragic history of persecutions and
deportations, creating multiple links between ancestry and geography. By
dismantling our notions of genetically distinct populations and
understanding our kinship, we can better appreciate our common history, and
more importantly, our shared future.“

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:54 AM, David Gehrig <[LINK:
mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org] david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:

Francis, your tinfoil about 9/11 and
zionists-have-infiltrated-my-toothpaste is goofy but not worth wasting my
time on.

But your Holocaust denial -- that's both goofy *and* deeply antisemitic,
and I'm not going to let Holocaust denial go unchallenged in my home town.

@%<

On Mar 27, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Stephen Francis <[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Your statement is just the typical rant that advances no ones knowledge,
and I must conclude from it that you support the findings of the 9/11
Commission that 19 hijackers (see below) defeated the most advanced
military in the world that receives $700 billion per year to defend us from
such alleged attacks.

I challenge anyone to find a report, article or anything from a pro-Zionist
point of view that challenges the accuracy of the 9/11 Commission Report.
It is obviously to their disadvantage for this to arise.

and this:

Robert Fisk ([LINK:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/welfarestate_hijackers.html]
911Research) reported that Abdulrahman al-Omari ([LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_al-Omari] Wikipedia), a pilot
with Saudi Airlines, went to the U.S. consulate in Jeddah to demand an
apology for being listed as one of the 19 hijackers. Al-Omari received an
official apology from the United States but coverage of this
acknowledgement was not made known by major media outlets in the U.S.
Alleged 9/11 hijackers Saeed Alghamdi ([LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeed_al-Ghamdi] Wikipedia) and Ahmed Alnami
([LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Alnami] Wikipedia), both pilots
for Saudi Arabian Airlines, also announced that they are alive. On
September 22, 2001, alleged suicide hijacker Wail Alshehri ([LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wail_al-Shehri] Wikipedia) announced from
Morocco that he is alive and innocent.
These major news events outside the U.S., are curiously glossed over or not
reported inside the U.S. by major media outlets.
On September 27, 2001, CBS reported it tracked down alleged hijacker Salem
Alhamzi ([LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_al-Hazmi] Wikipedia), an
employee of a government-owned petrochemical complex in Yanbu, Saudi
Arabia. While the list of alleged hijackers was rapidly proven to be
nonsense, over a decade later the 19 names and pictures are still being
sold as the people responsible to an uninformed American public.

Reports in the U.S. media soon after 9/11 pointed to the fact that several
of the alleged hijackers names matched people who had attended U.S.
military schools. For example, on September 15, 2001 [LINK:
http://www.newsweek.com/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-us-bases-152495]
Newsweek reported "U.S. military sources have given the FBI information
that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes used in Tuesday's
terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in
the 1990s
[IMAGE: newsweek] [LINK:
http://www.newsweek.com/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-us-bases-152495]
Newsweek

Can you, Mr. Gehrig prove that the above is wrong and that the 19
hijackers, as reported in the 9/11 Commission report were all killed in the
attacks?

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 6:43 AM, David Gehrig <[LINK:
mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org] david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:

Then let me leave you with one last thought. Holocaust denial is so
especially nauseating a combination of woo goo-goo and raw bug-eyed
antisemitism that nobody sane wants to be associated with it. Not out of
fear of what THE JEWS will do to their careers, but simply because it's
such obviously racist crackpot vomit.

Your claim that the Holocaust hasn't been intensely scrutinized
academically is simply delusory. There is intense academic interest in the
Holocaust. But academia rejects Holocaust denial for the same reason
astronomers reject flat earthers.

@%<

On Mar 26, 2014, at 9:50 PM, Stephen Francis <[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:

I've got to take a break from this conversation.
I will leave it with the thought:

We all believe 9/11 is important, but I'm the only person in this thread
that ever brings up the accusation that a US/Israeli/British cabal executed
the attack that brought about the murder of almost 3000 people. This
accusation consistently receives very little support for obvious reasons.
If you believe 19 Saudi hijackers did it, then I just laugh.  Have fun
reading the 9/11 Commission report (after you've finished the Warren
Commission report.)
If it wasn't the hijackers, then it was the cabal I mention. There are no
other credible candidates.
It is incontrovertibly against all laws of physics that planes hitting the
towers could have destroyed them.
And with the Holocaust, there also is highly credible information that the
standard orthodoxy is highly suspect whereby a diligent academic community
would invite challenge rather than intimidate their skeptical researchers.

There will be plenty of evidence at the conference to support the
initiation of investigations of the Holocaust, JFK assassination and 9/11
Truth that are allowed and encouraged by the concept of academic freedom.

We dare to bring them forward in an atmosphere that ridicules and punishes
those who try.
The highly important and related subjects of tenure erosion, adjunct
faculty and corporatization will also be addressed.

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:42 PM, David Gehrig <[LINK:
mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org] david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:

In other words, you have no evidence of the "Holocaust hoax," you just
believe there is some somewhere.

@%<

On Mar 26, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Stephen Francis <[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:

There is so much fear in addressing the holocaust that any rational
discussion is impossible.

And commenting on Adnan Zuberi by Mr. Morton:  I've had a few conversations
with Adnan and he was terrified of the holocaust subject and asked me to
absolutely not connect him in any way to the conference, of which I
complied.

And I agree, his film does a great job of explaining the important 9/11
issues, but remains distant from the perpetrators, which is consistent with
my prior statement about him.

As far as the gas chambers, I'll repeat that there is enough evidence to
academically review the holocaust, but obviously that's not going to happen
until there is a professional academic atmosphere to do it in.

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:30 PM, David Gehrig <[LINK:
mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org] david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:

Ah, the Leuchter report's krema capacity argument! Rockin' that Holocaust
denial old-style!

After the 2000 Irving libel trial, in which the Leuchter report was
examined in great detail, Leuchter's results were so thoroughly discredited
that even deniers stopped citing them, Most deniers got too embarrassed by
Leuchter to admit they were relying on his arguments. Do you know that
you've been fed stale dog food on this?

Modern standard, of course, is to cremate bodies one at a time, starting
from a crematorium in a cold state. Neither of those were the case in the
camps, which didn't need to reheat between loads, and which burned many
bodies at once.

Whoever's pulling your chain kinda neglected to mention that, didn't they.

@%<

On Mar 26, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Stephen Francis <[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:

correction made in previous email:  "Israel / British / US"
....

and on the Holocaust:
It doesn't matter what I think about it.  There is enough evidence to
dispute the official account. It should be debated without persecution in
academia and this is not the case.  In fact if you touch the subject you
lose your career.

But if you want evidence, just do the math on gassing and cremating 1
million people in about 30 crematoriums (that were designed to separate the
body and fire ash, very inefficient.) that take about 1-2 hours each to
fully cremate a body (this is a modern standard) and you'll will quickly
find that it is an impossible task to accomplish in the one and a half
years that Auschwitz was open.

 ... the facility only fully operational from the Spring of 1943 to 1945.
see [LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp]
Wikipedia "By June 1943, all four crematoria were operational. Most of the
victims were killed using these four structures ... "  The camps were
overrun by Soviet troops near the end of 1945

1,500,000 hours / 24 hours / 12 months.... it doesn't even come close....
no way to fudge the numbers.  An eighth grader could figure out it wouldn't
work let alone a university professor.

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:35 PM, David Gehrig <[LINK:
mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org] david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:

And what part of the Holocaust do you think is a hoax, Steve?

@%<

On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Stephen Francis <[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:

9/11 was the most important event that transitioned the world from the Cold
War/Soviet Union breakup to the so-called 'War on Terror' which is just a
hoax to enrich the pockets of the 1% at the expense of Islamic peoples.

To diminish 9/11 Truth is to deny the most important part of our recent
history.

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:12 PM, Stephen Francis <[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:

The Academic Freedom Conference: Are there Limits to Inquiry is just that,
a rhetorical statement that there really are no limits to academic inquiry.
 Politics, religion and military power hold no place in this process.  9/11
Truth, JFK assassination and the Holocaust should be openly debated.
Whether you like it or not there is a vast amount of verifiable facts that
refute the 'official' versions of these events.  The should be subject to
academic review without persecution.

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:06 PM, David Gehrig <[LINK:
mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org] david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:

Whoops! let's try that one again.

[LINK: http://static.nukulele.org/denial/youtube-statement.png]
http://static.nukulele.org/denial/youtube-statement.png

@%<

On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:02 PM, David Gehrig <[LINK:
mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org] david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:

Say, Steve, when you wrote this on YouTube publicizing your April
conference, what did you mean by "the seemingly enduring Holocaust hoax"?

[LINK: https://static.nukulele.org/denial/youtube-statement.png]
https://static.nukulele.org/denial/youtube-statement.png

@%<

On Mar 26, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Stephen Francis <[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:

If you want me to repeat what I said above I will, but I think it's
unnecessary.
Israel is under greater attack for more directions than ever before because
of the vast number of media choices people have to decide what the want to
pay attention to and have the will now to break through the propaganda
provided by the MSM, Wikipedia, Facebook and Google.  They won't touch
9/11, which is a highly significant point in itself that supports my view
that Israel was complicit in 9/11.

I'm old enough to remember watching Walter Kronkite on a black and white TV
and realize now that I was being brainwashed. I am no longer brainwashed.

I made the very incendiary remark about a year ago that I thought 3000
people were murdered on 9/11 and I still hold that belief, based on a
scientific process of evidence accumulation and analysis. No matter what I
do, nothing changes this.  If anyone can provide information that it was
some other force other than a combination of Israel / British / Israel I
will gladly look at that.

And like I mentioned above, we (these threads) all agree on many social
justice issues, but disagree vehemently on 9/11, which again just proves my
point that there is a hidden agenda to shift the blame away from Israel.
The present tide is in my favor.  Who knows where it will lead.  Just
imagine if the our modern civilization really came to grips with the
horrendous idea that 9/11 was indeed an 'inside job'.  It could mean more
than the end of Israel. This is the fear driving the conversation, I think.

I may be actually a friend of Israel in advocating a clean sweep of the
people who did this.

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:44 PM, Ricky Baldwin <[LINK:
mailto:rbaldwin at seiu73.org] rbaldwin at seiu73.org> wrote:
This type of thinking is exactly what concerns me, I'm afraid, if you are
referring to my skepticism:

"This is very suspicious to me and evidence of a those who do this having a
hidden agenda. 9/11 Truthers blame the same people/corporations/governments
for the aforementioned list as they blame for the deliberate destruction of
the WTC (to start wars, etc).  There is a glaring, obvious inconsistency
here."

You are making connections where none exist, like apophenia or cloud
watching.  Some of us remember the Slot-n-Wing guy who was at the forefront
of the local pro-war counter-demonstrations over on North Prospect in 2003
announcing over his loudspeaker and to the press that we on the anti-war
side were all following orders from our "foreign paymasters."  He couldn't
understand why we would oppose the invasion of Iraq - and in a sense looked
at the question in a similar way to the thought process advocated by our
side: cui bono? - but of course that's just suspicion, which as often as
not seems to have more to do with prejudice than evidence.

Some people even believe the 9-11 "conspiracy theories" are CIA/FBI/NSA
creations to discredit the anti-war movement or distract from the real work
of organizing around a clear agenda.  I haven't seen any evidence of this,
but it is a similar line of reasoning.

If I could try to clarify my point, Jesse, imagine an allegation, I don't
know, that Hitler was being paid by the US Government in long con to end
the Depression and stop Communism at the Brandenburg Gate, let's say.
There was early praise of Adolf from the later Allies, the US turned away a
shipload of Jewish refugees, etc.  The US clearly emerged from WW2 as the
world's dominant Superpower, so the *cui bono* question works.  Who lost
the most soldiers?  The Soviets.  Most of Europe was relegated to
dependency and even the Brits got taken down a notch, from "Empire" to
"Former".  But does this mean Hitler was a US puppet?

Look, there's a famous quote supposedly from Hermann Goering as a POW about
nobody wanting war and manipulating them by fear and so on.  I happen to
doubt its veracity.  I agree with the statement.  I just don't think
Goering said it.  Snopes calls it true, but I have my doubts.  Doesn't mean
I disagree with the goals of the people who repeat it.  I happen to love
the quote and really wish it were real.  I don't make a fuss because there
isn't much evidence either way, but don't assume that everyone who
disagrees with your pet theory is an agent of the dark side or something.

Ricky

________________________________
From: Stephen Francis [[LINK: mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com]
stephenf1113 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:44 PM
To: Ricky Baldwin; [LINK: mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; occupycu
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....

Most of us on these threads agree on the major issues of anti-war,
anti-military industrial complex, anti-nuclear, anti-discrimination,
anti-1%, anti-Wall Street corruption, anti-GMO, anti-NSA, anti- on and on
... and (oh... congratulations Carol Ammons, by the way).

We bash corporations for their greed, and blame the government for our
astronomical debt, but when it comes to 9/11 Truth all of a sudden many are
defending the official position (9/11 Commission joke) and going out of
their way to diminish the meaning of the events on 9/11.

This is very suspicious to me and evidence of a those who do this having a
hidden agenda. 9/11 Truthers blame the same people/corporations/governments
for the aforementioned list as they blame for the deliberate destruction of
the WTC (to start wars, etc).  There is a glaring, obvious inconsistency
here.

I want to make a correction in the Academic Freedom Conference restatement
I made the other day.  I said: "Dual Israeli/American citizens, for
example, were deeply involved in the ownership, privatization, cleanup,
rebuilding, adjudication, victim compensation, investigation and media
coverage of the destruction of the WTC complex."

This should have said - Dual Israeli/American citizens, for example, were
deeply involved in the ownership, privatization, cleanup, rebuilding,
adjudication, emergency management, legislation, military response,
investigation, victim compensation and media coverage of the destruction of
the WTC complex.

I'm sure you're all tired of my bashing Israel, but I have nowhere else to
look, It wasn't the Russians, Chinese, Jesuits, Martians.

The issue is not settled.

Here is more from California.

[sf911truth]

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:04 PM, Ricky Baldwin <[LINK:
mailto:rbaldwin at seiu73.org] rbaldwin at seiu73.org> wrote:
I'm afraid the elephant in the room has a dfferent name.  It appears to me
that much of the doubt directed at the "official version" of what happened
to the Twin Towers and AA77 has a source other than sound reason.

The circumstantial evidence for this (the doubters who also doubt the
Kennedy assassination, the moon walk, the Sandy Hook shootings, the
accident that killed Paul Wellstone and other highly dubious doubts, so to
speak) is not all, of course.  The view of the world that says every detail
must be accounted for fully and satisafctorily by a mundane model, or we
must cast the mundane model aside in favor of the fantastic, is troublesome
in itself.  And the reasning that, just because the Government lied about
some things, they must have lied about everything, is flawed.

George Bush & Co. told the world that Saddam Hussein maintained "weapons of
mass destruction" in 2003.  But once the US invasion and occupation
confirmed that this was untrue, the Government admitted that the expected
weapons were not there.  Couldn't they have issued a false report, or
planted some gas, or at least found a way to remove the UN stickers from
the old weapons already catalogued and out of commission?  If this were too
difficult for them to pull off, do we seriously believe that the events of
Sept. 11, 2001, were easier to fake?

Not that telling the truth on one item means they will tell the truth on
another, either, by any means.  We know that footage of crowds pulling down
a statue in Iraq was staged (we have the wider frame shots, the testimony
of folks who were there as the shots were set up, etc).  We also know that
some of the putative justification for the US attack on Iraq in the 1990's
was faked: the testimony of the young girl who supposedly saw Iraqi troops
removing Kuwaiti babies from incubators (she was never there, a PR firm
paid her, etc.).  But we have nothing even remotely approaching evidence
that 9-11 was a hoax, an inside job, or anything other that what it
appeared to be: a terrorist attack (with the caveat that the terrorists
seem to have been connected to elements originally trained by US agents in
Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation).

The vast majority of argumentation for 9-11 doubt takes the form "Why would
x happen?"  This is not evidence.  Ask almost anybody to explain, for
example, the weird effects of a tornado or hurricane, and they likely
cannot.  This is not evidence of funny business.

A minority of the argumentation consists of activities such as men in
overalls coming into the building over the weekend prior to Sept .11, 2011,
which we are supposed to find suspicious.  However, the individuals who say
they witnessed these activities say they saw nothing unusual in it at the
time.  It is only after the fact that significance seems to adhere to them,
like a funny feeling someone may remember having somewhere around the time
some terrible event is believed to have happened.  But there is no reason
to believe this is not simply confirmational bias (e.g. a song on the radio
that suits a mood or circumstance is noticed, while other songs before and
after are ignored because they do not seem to fit).

Who knows?  The World Trade Center may have been destroyed by Bush agents,
Israeli agents, extraterrestrials, a "directed energy beam," a "mini black
hole," or who knows what.  I can see that such theories are *more
interesting* that the apparent answer and subsequent opportunism by Bush et
al.  What I cannot see, no matter how many of these videos I watch, is *why
any of those explanations is better (or even equally) supported by the
evidence* compared to the apparent answer.

Another common mistake, which may be related to this one, is to dismiss all
horror stories, such as the very real evils of the old School of the
Americas, extraordinary rendition, and so on, as fantastical "conspiracy
theories" of the Roswell type.  We just have to look at the evidence if we
don't want to be gullible.

Ricky
________________________________
From: OccupyCU [[LINK: mailto:occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net]
occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net<mailto:[LINK:
mailto:occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net]
occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net>] on behalf of Stephen Francis [[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com<mailto:[LINK:
mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com] stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:03 PM
To: [LINK: mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:[LINK:
mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>;
occupycu

Subject: [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....

YouTube video<[LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJoejNkTp4U]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJoejNkTp4U>, 9/11/Truth<[LINK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJoejNkTp4U]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJoejNkTp4U>

[X]

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
[LINK: mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
[LINK: https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
[LINK: mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
[LINK: https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

          --------------------
_______________________________________________
 Peace-discuss mailing list
 [LINK: compose.php?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
 [LINK: https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140328/8c9dbd58/attachment-0001.html>